Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Harsh Rastogi Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT241; 2005(84)DRJ554

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) in FIR No.240/2005 registered at PS Dwarka under Sections 307/498-A/406/34 IPC.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner as disclosed in the FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner is that the petitioner and complainant were married at Delhi on 26th February, 2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. According to the complainant, her parents spent considerable amount in the marriage and also gave cash, jewellery, electronic goods, furniture etc. According to her, right from day one of the marriage, the petitioner, his parents, his brother and wife started taunting the complainant saying that she had brought less dowry. The parents of the petitioner used to say that they were getting Rs.30 lacs as dowry for the petitioner from others. Thereafter, the complainant was tortured, beaten and harassed. As per the demand of her ...

Soldiers United Motor, Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Official Li ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]129CompCas785(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT264; 2005(84)DRJ550; (2005)141PLR66

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the present appeal has been filed. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of CP No.64/78, Eviction Petition E.No.240/86 and CP No.31/93. In CP No.64/78, winding up order was passed on 3.8.1979. A former director filed CP No.31/93 under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking sanction of the scheme of arrangement propounded therein. On the other hand, the landlord of the premises filed the objection to the said scheme. The Official Liquidator rejected the scheme. The learned Company Judge vide the impugned order dealt with CP No.64/78 in which winding up order dated 3.8.1979 was passed. After winding up of the company, an application was moved before the Company Judge and partial stay was granted on 28.8.1984. The same has also been reproduced in the impugned order by the learned Company Judge.2. Eviction petition (E.No.240/86) was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the compan...

Ved Prakash Yadav Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT387; II(2005)DMC761; 2005(84)DRJ412

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the Bail Application No.2055/2005 for regular bail by the father-in-law of the deceased Poonam and Bail Application No.2272/2005 for anticipatory bail by the mother-in-law arising out of FIR No.479/2005 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Ved Prakash, is the father-in-law of deceased Poonam, who was married to Sunil Kumar on 27.4.2003 at Delhi. Petitioner, Omwati, is her mother-in-law. According to the prosecution, sufficient dowry was given in her marriage and a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- in cash was also given for a Santro Car. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the in-laws of Poonam including the petitioners started harassing and torturing her for more dowry. It was specifically stated in the FIR that Poonam's husband Sunil, his father, mother, elder brother Satish and his wife Sharmila were torturing Poo...

Shri Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT218

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of some monetary succour in connection with the untimely and tragic death of his son, namely, Shri Vikas Gupta. The undisputed facts of the case are that Vikas was driving a scooter bearing No. DL 6S K 5166 on which Shri Kirti was the pillion rider. At the junction of Mandir Marg and Punchkuian Road late Vikas and Kirti drove over a manhole which was three inches below the regular surface of the road. Vikas lost control of the scooter, was flung off, and violently struck against the side/divider railings. Vikas met with a gruesome death, the photographs of which are difficult to view. His face had been smashed to the extent that his teeth and parts of flesh had been severed from the body. The FIR records the statement of the pillion rider but as a practice of a Police Department, the statement casts the blame on the driver Vikas. This incident b...

Bharat Starch Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(198)ELT190(Del)

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. Aggrieved by a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Panchkula, the petitioner rushed to this Court to file W.P. No. 8099/2005, inter alia, contending that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was ultra virus the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The said petition was, eventually dismissed by this Court on 9-5-2005 as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the virus of the provisions after the competent authority considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. Upon examination of the objections filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed an order on 26-7-2005 rejecting the contentions urged by the petitioner and demanding duty and as also levying penalty under the relevant Rules. That order is admittedly appealable before the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner has not, however, preferred any such appeal. I...

Amar Deep Singh Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi190; 2005(85)DRJ179

R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner, above-named, has filed this petition for grant of probate of registered Will dated 8.11.1977 executed by Col.Iqbal Singh, AVSM, MC, M-in-D (Retd.), who is stated to have died at Panchkula, Haryana on 4.11.2000. The estate of the deceased, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid Will, comprises of the following immoveable properties:'a) House at D/123, defense Colony, New Delhi.Half share to my wife (Shrimati Vijai Kumari Bala) and to my only son Kunwar Amar Deep Singh. In the event of death of my wife, during my life time, this whole property is bequeathed to my son Kunwar Amar Deep Singh.b) Immovable and movable property at BAJWARA.Half equal share to my wife (Shrimati Vijai Kumari Bala) and to my only son Kunwar Amar Deep Singh. In the event of death of my wife, during my life time, this whole property is bequeathed to my son Kunwar Amar Deep Singh.c) Plot at PanchkulaHalf equal share to my wife (Shrimati Vijai Kumari Bala) and to my only son Kunw...

institute of Management Development and Research Vs. Ateesh Saurya

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant Institute runs Diploma Course in Exports. On account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not commencing the class after accepting the requisite fees or charges from the due date and not informing the respondent that its recognition had been withdrawn from 22.7.2000 whereas the appellant accepted Rs. 500 as examination fees on 12.5.2001, vide impugned order dated 1.5.2003, passed by the District Forum, it has been directed to refund the sum of Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 12.5.2001 when the last payment of Rs. 500 was received by the appellant and to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of his valuable time and carrier and cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved it has directed this appeal. 3. Appellant was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and in the instant case the appellant has neither controverted nor denied the factual matrix inasmuch as that the respondent joined the diploma course run by the appellant and...

Spbl Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processed Man Made Fabric and filed a refund claim in pursuance to the Notification No.25/2001-CE, dated 11-6-2001 vide which deemed credit admissible on the specified inputs used in the manufacture of processed man made fabric has been increased from 45% to 50%. As a result of which the net duty payable was reduced from 55% to 50%. The net effect of this increase of the deemed credit as the duty was reduced from 8% ad valorem.3. The contention of the appellant in spite of this during the period 11-6-2001 to 13-6-2001, the appellant continue to paid @ 8.8% instead of 8% ad valorem. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The finding of the lower authorities is that the appellant collected the duty from their customer, the...

Navkar Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT245TriDel

1. Both these appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals II), Indore by the rival parties to the extent that the order goes against them.2. In Appeal No. E/1213/04, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged to the extent that it confirms the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner demanding Central Excise duty for 28 invoices out of 107 invoices. The said appellant also challenges the imposition of penalty equal to the duty calculated in respect of 28 invoices which is confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Recovery of interest is also challenged by the said appellant.3. In the Appeal No. 3056/04, the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it set aside the demand in respect of 89 invoices out of 107 invoices on the ground that no packing slips were found corresponding to those invoices as were found in respect of 28 other invoices showing excess removal of goods.Revenue has also challenged the order of t...

Emerson Process Management Power Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Service Tax demand is in relation to supply of electrical control system for GAIL's UP Petrochemicals Project. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the supply was in terms of a works contract for manufacture, installation and commissioning of the specified equipment and it is well settled (Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara- (T) that a work contract cannot be divided and part of it subjected to service tax. Learned Counsel also points out that the demand has been issued without service of any show cause notice.3. Prima facie appellant's contract appears to be a works contract not rather than composite contract for supply of goods and services. This Tribunal's decision in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, appears to cover the present case in favour of the assessee. In view of this, requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery is stated till the disposal of the appeal....